Your editorial, "Croatia’s Sellout," July 10, seemed t o have been prompted more by your desire for evenhandedness than by the desire to objectively analyze the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Unlike Serbia, Croatia recognized the sovereignty, independence, and inviolability of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In contrast to Serbian Army offensive actions in Bosnia, Croat troops are conducting defensive actions. The Bosnian government has repeatedly asked for international help. Consequently the republic of Croatia has lent support to refugees in Croatia. Does anybody expect Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina to preach pacifism – only to be routed and slaughtered, and later to be bewailed by vicarious United Nations world-improvers? Last year, when the Yugoslav Army attacked Croatia, Croats learned that the best way their new state can obtain recognition and deal with the aggressor is through military resistance. The decision by the Croats in Herzegovina to set up their own administrative region within Herzegovina must be put in perspective. This decision by no means suggests that Croats are carving up Bosnian territory. There has been no "secret" deal between Serbia and Croatia – as Serbian continuous shelling of Croat towns both in Herzegovina and Croatia demonstrates. By contrast, not a single town in Serbia has so far been attacked by Croat troops.
News reports reflecting the Bush Administration position may lead some to the conclusion that the unity of Yugoslavia needs to be preserved at all costs. Several arguments speak to the contrary. The issue of a federal Yugoslavia versus a confederal Yugoslavia, as put forward by Serbia and Croatia, respectively, is of an academic, but not a substantive nature. Had Serbia abided by the federal principles, many of today’s problems could have been avoided. Instead, federalism died in Yugoslavia in the early 1980’s when Serbia dismantled the autonomy of Kosovo province and declared martial law against ethnic Albanians. Nor did Serbia’s actions tame further ethnic passions; rather, they exacerbated nationalist demands in other parts of Yugoslavia. A parallel could be drawn with certain Soviet republics that, threatened by federal authority, automatically increased their claims for more autonomy. Given the already high proportion of Serbs in the diplomatic corps and the army, Serbian insistence on the preservation of a federal Yugoslavia will continue to be seen as a fig leaf for Serbian supremacy. Part of the problem lies in the decades of intransigence by the Yugoslav federal leadership to accommodate the initially modest demands of Croats, Albanians and Slovenes for a more equitable representation on the federal level. It would be unwarranted to assume that Croats or Slovenes have been bent on seceding from Yugoslavia all along. The often-heard argument among Western observers, including State Department officials, that independent Croatia or Slovenia would have no economic basis for survival as independent states misses the essential point. Rather than wondering whether Croatia and Slovenia can survive alone, one needs to ponder whether any Yugoslavia can continue to exist as a single state. A serious commitment on the part of all republics to restructuring Yugoslavia along confederal lines had, until recently, a chance of success. Today this option is no longer possible. Each confederation plan presupposes friendly relations among its ethnic constituents, not armed threats against one another. With all Yugoslav republics having voted Communism out of power – with the single exception of Communist Serbia – one wonders what is the point in keeping Yugoslavia together? The timely dissolution of Yugoslavia now appears the only solution to civil war. Those who placed high hopes in the Yugoslav experiment need to realize that the peaceful departure of its feuding peoples is far preferable to the violent imposition of military rule and the subjugation of one republic by another.
Les récentes manifestations politiques et intellectuelles de l’opposition serbe à Belgrade, dirigées contre le président Slobodan Milosevic, sont fort louables, mais elles viennent un peu tard. L’Académie serbe des sciences et des arts, présentée comme l’un des principaux initiateurs de ces manifestations, a un passé peu glorieux. En 1986, ne rédigeait-elle pas le célèbre « mémorandum » dont les signataires appelaient à la création de la « Grande Serbie » et à la « purification ethnique » du Kosovo ? L’Eglise orthodoxe serbe, également désignée comme force de résistance, a longtemps tenu le profil bas. L’a-t-on entendue condamner la répression anti-albanaise au Kosovo ou les premières agressions militaires de l’armée « yougoslave » contre la Croatie ? Quant aux intellectuels serbes, ils n’étaient guère nombreux à élever la voix lorsque les villes de Dubrovnik et de Vukovar agonisaient sous les bombes. La volonté d’agréger à la Grande Serbie les régions à minorité serbe des Républiques voisines aura n’en doutons pas, des conséquences néfastes pour la Serbie elle-même. Aujourd’hui la plus forte, elle laisse libre cours à ses appétits territoriaux. Mais demain, si le sort des armes lui est défavorable, qui empêchera les Albanais de réclamer le Kosovo ou les Hongrois d’annexer les territoires à forte population magyare ? à terme, la Grande Serbie que les politiciens serbes bâtissent dans le sang des peuples voisins pourrait bien devenir la Petite Serbie. Quant aux responsabilités des carnages de Bosnie-Herzégovine, que l’on tente d’attribuer au seul Slobodan Milosevic, elles sont pour le moins partagées. Le dictateur serbe n’est jamais que le produit d’une époque, produit fabriqué à Washington et à Paris autant qu’à Belgrade. Les gouvernements américain et français, en défendant naïvement – ou cyniquement – « l’unité et l’intégrité » yougoslaves (que leurs propres diplomaties avaient créées ex nihilo en 1919), on laisse s’envenimer la situation. Le proverbial « Slobo » n’est pas le seul bourreau des Balkans : aujourd’hui et depuis fort longtemps, des dizaines de petits « slobos » ont mis en place, politiquement et intellectuellement, l’engrenage de la violence.
M. Tomislav Sunic, professeur de science politique au Juniata College, Pennsylvanie (Etats-Unis), nous écrit a propos de notre dossier « L’éclatement de la Fédération yougoslave est-il inéluctable ? », paru dans notre numéro de mai :
Your recent article “Soviets gain the upper hand in Yugoslav politics?” (Sept. 28) suggests naively that the crackdown on dissidents in Belgrade is due to the invisible hand of the Soviet Union, although no proofs of Soviet involvement were given by the article. American media portray Yugoslavia as “a liberal Communist country.” Although Amnesty International, based in London, has clearly established that in recent years the human rights violation in Yugoslavia is the worst in East Europe. The silent persecutions of intellectuals, ever since the Communist takeover in 1945, have been sponsored by the gullibility of American media and less direct Soviet involvement. The recent arrests made in Belgrade are just a side effect in view of the brutal pacification of Croatia in 1971, and the reign of terror against the Albanian minority in Kosovo Province. Since 1981 Kosovo Province has been under a state of siege, where no foreign journalists are allowed to travel. The massacre of Albanian students which left over 100 people dead passed completely unnoticed in the American media. The hypocrisy of the present administration is in the fact that it sees red only in the case of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Communist Yugoslavia is extolled as a “liberal country” opposing the Russian bear. Reagan should remember that Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Enver Hoxa’s Albania, and Tito’s Yugoslavia constitute a gang of “non-aligners,” yet all of them capable of legalizing Gulag practices in their own scenario. The massive American financial help to Communist Yugoslavia and the persistent eulogizing of Tito’s murderous practices clearly show that the administration’s primary concern is not anti-communism, but simply the sellout of Yugoslavia in the spirit of the Yalta agreement. By its awkward and cynical attitude toward the issue of Eastern Europe the present administration loses the respect and the hope of those having firsthand knowledge of Communism.
In the wake of the joint declaration in Geneva between President Franjo Tudjman of Croatia and Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, some foreign journalists have jumped to the conclusion that such an agreement amounts to the creation of some sort of alliance against the Bosnian Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth. The joint declaration is a small but important step in the possible normalization of relations between Serbia and Croatia. This breakthrough paves the way, we hope, for mutual recognition of internationally recognized borders. It may seem ironic that Croatia, a victim of Serbian aggression, is the first country to begin normalizing relations with Serbia, or what is left of Yugoslavia. This decision was not solely Croatia’s choice, but also that of the international community. Croatia and President Tudjman are doing their utmost to help restore peace in this part of Europe. Nonetheless, Croatia’s decision to sign this declaration in no way means that Croatia will abandon efforts to bring about a lasting peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the contrary, Croatia has been more than forthcoming with the Bosnian Muslims on the future structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also bear in mind that Croatia is accommodating more than 150,000 Muslim Bosnian refugees, for whom most of the cost is covered by the Croatian government. Croatia and President Tudjman do not hold all the cards for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian Serbs still control 70 percent of Bosnia’s territory, while it is the Bosnian Croats who have lost a considerable amount of territory to the Muslim forces since the breakup of their alliance.
The causes of the never-ending war in the Balkans could plausibly be attributed to [the] excessive legalism of international organizations, including the United Nations. Despite noble efforts to end the three-year-old conflict in the Balkans, the U.N., as well as other international actors, is still unable to speak with one voice. It is worth recalling that in 1991, when Yugoslavia began to fall apart, the republic of Croatia expected the European Community and the United Nations to accept its bid for independence, hoping that its recognition would stave off the looming Serbian military threat. In the absence of prompt international recognition, and due to its lack of firepower, Croatia could not put up credible deterrence against a Serbian land grab. Croatia had to wait six long months before it was finally recognized by all European Community members, and several more months before it finally joined the U.N. club. Meanwhile, it lost 27 percent of its territory to the invading “Yugoslav” Army and local Serb insurgents. Ironically, it was Serbia that, while trying to salvage Yugoslavia by force also destroyed it by force. While despairing whether or not the “premature” recognition of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, prompted by the Balkan bloodshed, one might also raise the question whether France, England, and America should have “prematurely” helped create, in 1919, the artificial Yugoslav state. The principles of “brotherhood and unity,” which were subsequently imposed by force on the Yugoslav constituent peoples in Josip Broz Tito’s Communist Yugoslavia could hardly mask profound cultural differences among diverse Yugoslav ethnic groups. In the former Yugoslavia, each ethnic group pretended to love another ethnic group, while secretly thinking of how to part company and go its own way. Had the international community been aware of this state of mind among the former Yugoslav constituent ethnic groups, much of the present chaos and inter-ethnic hatred could have been avoided. Over the past two years, the U.N. and other international actors have passed numerous resolutions calling on the Serbs to stop their aggression on neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina. Today, as the surreal Balkan drama becomes more and more unbearable to Western prime-time viewers, some foreign observers are calling for the creation of a war crimes tribunal for those Balkan warlords suspected of committing war crimes. Yet the idea of the international war crimes tribunal, noble as it sounds, cannot be taken seriously. While Serb leaders Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic are often being portrayed as “war criminals,” pressing them to attend multilateral talks with their Croat and Muslim counterparts, under the U.N. auspices, only provided legitimacy to the Serbian “ethnic cleansing.” The legal options of Croatia, the first victim of Serbian aggression, have been difficult since the day of Yugoslavia’s break-up. On the one hand, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman is expected to negotiate with his Serbian counterpart Slobodan Milosevic. On the other, he is suspected by some foreign observers of cutting secret deals with Mr. Milosevic. The war in the former Yugoslavia, which began in 1991 as a limited war of Serbian aggression against unarmed Croatia, has now turned into protracted no-war-no-peace stalemate, with ominous consequences for all of Europe. The well-meaning indecisiveness of the U.N., followed by the lack of consensus among world powers, may only be the first chapter in this bloody European drama.
Amidst breathtaking changes in Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia appears as a cadaver that simply refuses to rot away. Not long ago the Yugoslav communists could claim to be the first initiators of their self-styled perestroika, and their maverick self-managing communism engendered considerable awe in many Western well-wishers. Today, however, Yugoslav institutions are turning into anachronisms, and Yugoslavia’s ill-conceived federalism has pushed its six constituent republics to the brink of civil war. With the recent electoral success of conservatives in Slovenia and Croatia, Yugoslavia is the only country in Eastern Europe where non-communist governments in the north cohabit with communist governments in the south. Constant ethnic provocations and chauvinist slurs from all six republics have made Yugoslavia an ungovernable and unlivable state whose break-up is threatening to turn the Balkans into European Lebanon. Bracing for the coming deluge, Slovenia and Croatia are already bidding farewell to the remainder of Yugoslavia and are eagerly courting the favors of their West European neighbors. Without Slovenia, or possibly without the southern province of Kosovo, where the Serbs still exercise their iron muscle, Yugoslavia could continue to hobble on, but its life would not last a minute with Croatia’s walkout. The second largest and richest republic and arch-rival of Serbia, Croatia is experiencing a nationalist revival whose aftershocks are putting the last nails in the coffin of fractured Yugoslavia. The secessionist drive among Croatian and Slovenian nationalists has been met with hostility and outright fear among influential Serbs and their power base in the army and diplomacy. Left to itself, and cut loose from affluent Slovenia and Croatia, the lone Serbia knows all too well that it is doomed to shrink fast into an obscure landlocked Balkan state. The terminal illness of Yugoslavia probably would never have occurred without the emergence several years ago of the wildly popular Serbian communist leader Slobodan Milosevic – a man who rose from a provincial apparatchik to a chief torchbearer of Serbian nationalism. Milosevic’s fiery speeches galvanized Serbs, triggering in turn similar nationalist appetites among other scared republics. Today all four major ethnic groups are displaying an impressive litany of past injustices, angrily blaming each other for their real or perceived ethnic plights. No less ominous is the conduct of the Serbian intelligentsia. Once it could proudly claim to be the most progressive and reform-minded in Eastern Europe; today it has entered an alliance with the mob rule. However, its support of Milosevic’s heavy-handed policy in the southern province of Kosovo has yielded results different from those it originally anticipated. The continuing exodus of ethnic Serbs from this little enclave, which by now is 80 percent populated by the Moslem ethnic Albanians, will further legitimize neighboring Albanians’ claims to an ethnically pure and aggrandized Albania. The skyrocketing baby boom among Albanians is already changing the demographic picture of the entire Balkans. Among Yugoslav nationalisms there has never been a net loser or a net winner; the rendering of ethnic justice to one ethnic group is invariably perceived as injustice by another group. More than any other European state, the patchwork of Yugoslav nations, which were glued together by force rather than by consent, has earned Yugoslavia a sorry name of a levitating “seasonal state.” One wonders what will happen with superpowers’ security arrangements when Yugoslavia disappears from the map. Ironically, Yugoslavia’s survival so far is due to its shifting ethnic balance of power as well as to the lack of any organized pan-Yugoslav opposition. The very inter-ethnic anarchy of Yugoslavia accounts also for its morbid longevity. Undoubtedly, if the events of 1914 or 1941 were to be repeated today, Yugoslavia would immediately disintegrate, with Slovenia and Croatia flocking to the West, and Serbia shrinking farther under the watchful eyes of its inimical Hungarian and Bulgarian neighbors. Today, the remainder of the Yugoslav Communist League, with its power base in Serbia, has been caught unprepared. Ethnically fractured and ideologically discredited, the communists can no longer resort to the cliché of external “Soviet threat,” or point to internal “reactionary fascists” in order to keep themselves in power. Even hard-line communists must admit that there are simply no more scapegoats. Can Yugoslavia survive? Yes, but only as an authoritarian or a totalitarian state led by its largest ethnic group. A democratic Yugoslavia is a contradiction in terms. A democratic Yugoslavia can exist only if it breaks up first.
The race for victim status in Bosnia-Herzegovina appears to be over. The Serbs, as the main aggressors and initial perpetrators of “ethnic cleansing” hardly qualify. The international press has obviously decided that the Croats do not qualify either, despite the fact that the Bosnian Croats have lost considerable territory to the Moslems since the break-up of their alliance. The Moslems seem to have realised, after months of hope, that the international community is unwilling to help them take on their real enemies, the Serbs. Consequently, they have turned on their former allies, the Croats. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the lines between the Croats and Moslems have moved exclusively in the Moslem’s favour, resulting in more than 100,000 Croatian refugees and displaced persons from Bosnia-Herzegovina. While the Press and international organisations have free access to Moslem fighters in Croat POW camps – thanks to the vigorous intervention of Croatia’s Foreign Minister, Mr. Mate Granic – the fate of thousands of Croats in similar Moslem camps remains unknown. The current goals of the Moslem side have been made clear by their spokesman, Chuck Sudetic, recently quoted in the New York Times: “The international community will recognise our right to the territories we win. The international community has said in no uncertain terms that it is ready to legitimise the acquisition of territory by force, and that’s the way it will be in the future.” He went on to state that while the Serbs were too strong to fight against, the Croats were weak. Unfortunately, it is this recent Moslem calculation which has precipitated Croat-Moslem fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina, no Croatian aggression. Fighting between Moslems and the Croats would never have erupted had the international community reacted promptly to early Serbian aggression against both of those communities. Maybe by the time this conflict spreads throughout the Balkans, Europe and the world will finally figure out who the real culprit is.
One must agree with Georges Sorel that political myths have a long and durable life. For 74 years the Yugoslav state drew its legitimacy from the spirit of Versailles and Yalta, as well as from the Serb-inspired pan-Slavic mythology. By carefully manipulating the history of their constituent peoples while glorifying their own, Yugoslav leaders managed to convince the world that Yugoslavia was a “model multiethnic state.” Many global-minded pundits in the West followed suit and made a nice career preaching the virtues of the Yugoslav multi-ethnic pot. By tirelessly vaunting the Yugoslav model, scores of starry-eyed Western academics gave, both pedagogically and psychologically, additional legitimacy to artificial Yugoslavia. In 1991, faced with massive geopolitical tremors, stretching from Siberia to Spain, the Yugoslav mythology began cracking up, and with it, its multiethnic mystique. The sudden beginning of the democratization of Yugoslavia led, naturally, to the country’s demise, the bloody postscript to which is yet to unfold.